Christian Apologetics Part 4 - How can we know the New Testament is accurate and true?

2Pe 1:20-21 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.   For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (NIV)

2Ti 3:16,17All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV)

 We have seen in previous posts that God exists and that He interacts with his creation.  The question then becomes, "How does he interact with his creation?"  As Christians, we believe that God spoke to His prophets who wrote down the message they received and we then can read God's message for His people.

Many have posited that the Bible is a book written by men to seek control over other men or to claim divine right to occupy a certain land.  In this post I will attempt to answer a few of the key questions.

1. How can we know the New Testament we have is what was originally written?
2. How can we know that the New Testament is true?

The definitive work on the subject was written by Josh McDowell and is entitled "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" from which the bulk of this information comes - with my comments littered throughout, of course. :-)

This bit can be somewhat dry, but the information is important and significant and demands an answer.

We have none of the original texts, so how can we know the New Testament we have is what was originally written?

C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English Literary History lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography.  These are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test and the external evidence test.[1]

The Bibliographical test

 How did the documents reach us?  How reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and earliest existing (extant) copies?

There are more than 5,600 full or partial manuscripts in the original Greek and that does not include the 10,000+ copies of the Latin Vulgate and more than 9,000 other translated manuscripts.

The earliest extant copies of the New Testament date to the second century.  Others date the fourth century.[2]

By comparison, Homer’s Iliad is second in number of manuscripts of similar age, and it has 643 surviving copies whose earliest manuscripts date from the thirteenth century. [3]

Josh McDowell quotes Sir Frederic G. Kenon, the director and principal librarian of the British Museum who states that

Besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors. … In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.  The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century – say 250 to 300 years later.  This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts.  We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet’s death.[4]

The point here being that there are simply so many copies which are so close in age to the original documents we can be certain that what we have today is absolutely the text that was originally written.

…“to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[5]

Figure 1 is a table of other works and their historicity as originally printed in The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows some examples of quotations of the original documents by early church fathers (also from The New Evidence…).  According to Harold Greenly “These quotations are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament Manuscripts.[6]

Figure 2

So, we see that there is far more support for the accuracy of the New Testament than any other document of antiquity.

The internal evidence test

 Aristotle’s dictum (according to John Warwick Montgomery): “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.”  Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.”[7]

It is important here to note some critical principles for interpreting scriptures.  Just as scientific discoveries are subject to interpretation, so are the words of any document (such as the Constitution of the United States).

Some have said that if it is subject to interpretation then it could be interpreted in any way and thus it becomes useless as a document upon which one can rely.  The problem with this objection is that all documents and even empirical evidence are subject to interpretation.  If one leaves Dallas and enters Fort Worth is he leaving town or entering town?  That is a matter of perspective and one would not be wrong in answering either way.

The art an science of interpreting documents is so common that there is a term for it: hermeneutics.  Biblical Hermeneutics is a sub-category of general hermeneutics and there are some principles one should follow if one wants a sound interpretation.

I would be remiss if I didn't also note that when Bible scholars translate the text from its original language there is necessarily some interpretation involved (not simply translation).  Different languages have words that mean different things in different contexts and there are concepts with words defined for them in one language where there is no corresponding word in another language.  Biblical Hebrew has about 50,000 words.  Conversational American English has anywhere from 300,000 to a  million words depending on who you talk to.  Bible translators must try to find the best words in one language to express what they believe the original author meant in the original language.

As a result, taking any single translation and assuming it is a fully accurate translation and interpretation of the original work is problematic at best.  A proper study should involve reading multiple translations and scholars' interpretations and looking at the possible meaning of any disputed word (like the aforementioned "Yome").

Principles for interpreting scripture (hermeneutics):

1. The Unexplained Is Not Necessarily Unexplainable.  It is a mistake to assume that because it cannot be explained by you and now that it is unexplainable.
2. Fallible Interpretations Do Not Mean Fallible Revelation.  The Bible is infallible in its original language and in its original version.  A misinterpretation is not indicative of fallibility of the original document in its original language.
3. Understand the Context of the Passage.  “A text out of context is a pretext.”  The Bible says “there is no God”, actually what it says is “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Ps. 14:1).
4. Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones.  If a scripture can be interpreted in more than one way it should be interpreted in a way that is harmonious with other scripture on the same topic i.e. "Thou shalt not kill", while an accurate translation is better interpreted "Thou shalt not murder".
5. Don’t base teaching on obscure passages.  The perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture: “the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things”.  If it is important it will be clearly taught.  When in doubt, refer to #4.
6. The Bible is a Human Book with Human Characteristics.  Biblical authors use expressions of speech (i.e. hyperbole) and should not always be taken literally (1 Co 13:1-3).
7. Just Because a Report is Incomplete Does Not Mean It Is False.  One gospel account refers to one angel at the tomb and another refers to two.  The first is not incongruous with the second unless it states one and only one angel was present (which is not the case.  See the differences of the tomb incident in all four gospels).
8. New Testament Citations of the Old Testament Need Not Always Be Exact.  On many instances the New Testament author will paraphrase the Old Testament author.
9. The Bible Does Not Necessarily Approve of All It Records.  The Bible records lies and deception but that does not mean it approves of those actions.
10. The Bible Uses Non-Technical Everyday Language.  If the Bible states the sun rose on a certain day it is not inaccurate even though we know the sun does not “rise” per se.
11. The Bible May Use Both Round Numbers and Exact Numbers.  If the Bible states an army contained 10,000 men it might have had 9,927.  Rounding is not inaccurate, it is just rounded.
12. Note When the Bible Uses Different Literary Devices.  The context will usually determine whether a statement should be taken literally or figuratively.
13. An Error in a Copy Does Not Equate to an Error in the Original.  Inerrancy only applies to the originals (autographs).
14. General Statements Don’t Necessarily Mean Universal Promises.  Proverbs is a collection of generalized truths and not literal promises.
15. Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation.  God shows us in Jonah that he can and will change his mind.  He also has different rules for living in the Old Testament period than in the New Testament period.[8]

Is the writer able to tell the truth (do they know it well enough)?

The information written in the New Testament came from primary sources – from eyewitnesses.  2 Peter 1:16 says “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”[9]  The closeness of the witness to the time of the event makes the witness more reliable.  Since all New Testament scripture came directly from eyewitnesses it carries the highest possible reliability in this respect.[10]

Is the writer detailed enough to bear scrutiny?

In Luke 3:1 the writer begins the chapter thus: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—

during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert (NIV).  These times and places can and have been corroborated through archeological and other historical evidence.  Compare this with Nostradamus who spoke in such vague generalities that one could apply them to most any world event, [11] or with the Book of Mormon which makes claim after claim after claim about devices which didn’t exist at the time the book was supposedly written[12] to animals in the Americas which didn’t exist until centuries after they were found, [13] to vast cities no evidence of which have ever been found, to the claim that American Indians were the descendants of Jews, which, according to DNA evidence, is patently and unmistakably false.[14]

Some have claimed that the Bible is full of self-contradictions.  A response to this argument is saved for part six (stay tuned).

Importantly, the Bible makes no historical claim which can be discredited by any historical or archeological evidence.

The External Evidence Test

Archeological Evidence

Archeology cannot prove the Bible is true, but it could certainly prove certain parts of it are false.  Archeology can show that a particular historical setting as described in the Bible is accurate or is not.  It can find corroborating documentation or conflicting documentation.  It can prove that a city existed or that a document was written at a certain time, but it cannot prove that what is in the document is true beyond simply being historically accurate.  In every single instance, however, archeology has supported the Biblical account.

Archeology, like many other fields, is an inexact science.  Archeologists many times make educated guesses.  One could find many instances where archeologists believe something but cannot prove it.  Such is the case with many who attempt to disprove the Bible through archeology (there have been cases where archeologists have taken liberties to try to prove the Bible true as well).  In no instance has an archeological find proven a Biblical account to be false.  Conversely, in many instances, it has proven the Biblical account to be accurate when common thought assumed it was not.[15]

Documentary Evidence

Josephus

Flavius Josephus was born in A.D. 37 and was a high priest, a Pharisee, and defender of the Romans – a Jewish traitor who surrendered to the Romans during the Jewish Roman war.

He wrote four historical works one of which was called The Antiquities of the Jews in which he wrote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.[16]

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus was born in A.D. 56 and was a senator and historian of the Roman Empire.  In his book The Annals, he wrote of Nero’s attempt to blame the guilt for the burning of Rome on the Christians:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths.  Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger was the son of Pliny the Elder ( a famous encyclopedist who died in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D 79).  He was governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey.[17]  Pliny, when dealing with a new sect called the Christians sent a letter to Emperor Trajan asking for advice. There are a number of translations of the original letter which is written in Latin, but the text is undisputed and the original documents are available for comparison.

Gaius Plinius to the Emperor Trajan

It is for me an important point of responsibility to refer to you as Head of State, things about which I have questions, since you are the person best able to set straight my hesitations and correct my lack of information.

Actually I have never been present at a Examination (cognitio) of Christians, so I do not know what punishment is required or how far it is to be carried out. Nor do I understand the legal grounds for a prosecution, or how stringently it is to be prosecuted. I am not clear about prosecutions in respect to the age of the persons, whether no distinction should be made between the young and the old, and furthermore whether a pardon should be granted in cases of recanting, or if there is no advantage for a person completely ceasing to be a Christian. Or is it the name "Christian" which is prosecutable, even if not involved in criminal actions, or is it that "criminality" is automatically attached to the name?

In the meantime, I now handle it this way with those who are turned over to me as Christians. I ask them directly, in person, if they are Christian, I ask a second and third time to be sure, and indicate to them the danger of their situation. If they persist, I order them to be dispatched (= executed). I have had no trouble with this, since whatever it was they admitted or professed, I decided that their obstinacy and unyielding inflexibility should be sufficient reason for punishment. Some others who were virtually insane with this cult, but Roman citizens, I sent back to Rome for trial.

As I continue with this handling of the situation, as often happens, the numbers and kinds of incriminations are becoming more widespread. An anonymous List has been brought out which contains the names of a great many persons. I decided to dismiss charges against any on this list who stated that they were now not, nor had ever been Christians, if they repeated after me a prayer of invocation to the Gods, and made an offering of wine and incense to your statue, which I had brought in to the court along with the statues of the Gods, for this purpose. And in addition they were to formally curse Christ, which I understand true Christians will never do.

Other named by the anonymous List said they were Christians, and later changed their statement. Some said that they had been and then stopped, some three years before, some longer, some even twenty years before. All these reverenced your statue and those of the Gods, and cursed Christ. They stated that the sum total of their error or misjudgment, had been coming to a meeting on a given day before dawn, and singing responsively a hymn to Christ as to God, swearing with a holy oath not to commit any crime, never to steal or commit robbery, commit adultery, fail a sworn agreement or refuse to return a sum left in trust. When all this was finished, it was their custom to go their separate ways, and later re-assemble to take food of an ordinary and simple kind. But after my edict which forbids all political Societies, they did in fact give this up.  I thought at this point that it was necessary to get information from two slave women, whom they call Deaconesses (ministrae) about the actual truth, by means of torture. I found nothing worthy of blame other than the blind and over-wrought nature of their cult-superstition.

I have therefore postponed further examinations (cognitiones) and made haste to come to you immediately for consultation. This situation seem to demand serious consultation, especially in view of the large number of people falling into this danger. A great many persons of every age, of every social class, men and women alike, are being brought in to trial, and this seems likely to continue. It is not only the cities, but also the towns and even the country villages which are being infected with this cult-contagion.

It seems possible to check and reverse this direction at this point, for it is quite clear that the Temples of the Gods which have been empty for so long, now begin to be filled again, the sacred rites which had lapsed are now being performed and flesh for sacrificial rites is now sold again at the shops, although for a while nobody would buy it. So it seems reasonable to think that a great many people could be persuaded to reform, if there were a legal procedure for repentance.

Emperor Trajan to Pliny:

You have done the right thing, my dear Pliny, in handling the cases of those who were brought to you under the charge of being Christians. But it is not possible to make hard and fast rules with one specific formula. These people must not be searched out, if they are brought before your court and the case against them is proved, they must be punished, but in the case of anyone who states that he is not a Christian and makes it perfectly clear that he is not, by offering prayers to our Gods, such a one is to be pardoned on the grounds of his present repentance, however suspect he may have been in the past. But anonymous lists must not have any place in the court proceedings. They are a terrible example and not at all in keeping with our times.[18]

So even without the text of the New Testament, just from the works of other non-Christian authors:

“We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; sixth, despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from the cities and countryside – men and women, slave and free – worshiped Him as God.”[19]

All of these documents support the accuracy of the New Testament text from non-Christian sources. 

How can we know that the New Testament is true?

The question is not whether or not the text of the New Testament can be proven to be true.  It may not be possible to prove that any text is 100% true.  Rather, the question is, is there enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the text is true.  To answer this question we look to the device of reason.

Reason 1: If a book were fabricated to make one look like a God, it would include only a positive portrayal of the God-man and his followers.  In the Bible, Jesus is described as not able to work miracles in Galilee because of that town’s lack of faith.[20] Peter denies knowing Jesus and even called down curses on himself.[21]  We are shown again and again the flaws of the people who are the foundations of Christianity.  This straightforwardness of telling the whole truth and not just the “good parts” points toward the truthfulness of the text.

Reason 2: Who would die for a lie?[22]  It is shown not only in the New Testament, but also in other corroborating, non-Christian documents that all of the Apostles except John were martyred for their faith and John spent the last years of his life exiled to the Isle of Patmos.  These are the men who wrote the New Testament and were eyewitnesses to the Christ.  Would they all be willing to sacrifice their lives for a lie?  A reasonable assumption is that they would not – especially after scattering after his arrest and claiming not to know him.

Reason 3: The New Testament claims to be true and factual unlike other historically accurate works which are fictional stories based on historically accurate places and times (i.e. Homer’s The Illiad).  If these books claim to be factual and no aspect of them can be proven to be false then, as per Aristotle’s Dictum, they should be considered to be true.

So, whereas we have no absolute proof that the text of the New Testament is true, we also have no evidence whatsoever to show that it isn't.  If our goal is to remove the obstacles to faith from a seeker's path then the work has been accomplished.  There is absolutely no evidence that the text of the New Testament is inaccurate or false and much evidence that it is accurate and true.

What about the Old Testament, though?  Is there similar evidence supporting its accuracy and truthfulness?  That is the subject I will take up in the next blog posting.

---

[1] The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.  P 33.

[2] IBID, pp 35-36.

[3] IBID, p 34.

[4] The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.  P 35.

[5] IBID

[6] The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.  p43.

[7] The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, p45.

[8] Entire list taken from The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, pp 46-51.

[9] See also: Luke 1:1-3, 1 John 1:3, Acts 2:22, John 19:35, Luke 3:1 and Acts 26:24-26.

[10] It does not, however, prove that those writing the work were not willfully attempting to mislead or misrepresent the facts.

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus: “most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever interpreted any of Nostradamus's quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance”

[12] 1 Nephi 4:9 describes a blade of “the most precious steel”.  Steel had not yet been invented at the time.

[13] 1 Nephi 18:25 describe a boat landing on the American continent 6 centuries before the time of Christ where they found “beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals”.  Neither horses, nor cows nor goats came to the Americas until the 14^th century AD.

[14] DNA evidence has shown unequivocally that American Indians are of Mongol and not Jewish descent and furthermore, archeological evidence proves the migration of those early Americans across the bering straits of Alaska by land and not from Israel by boat as is claimed in 1 Nephi.

[15] See The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, pages 97-107 for specific accounts.

[16] The Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, public domain.  Book XVIII (Edition 11), Chapter 3 Paragraph 3.

[17] The Case For Christ, Strobel, Zondervan, p83.

[18] Pliny and the Christians, Letter to the Emporer Trajan. Written in A.D. 111 and preserved intact.

[19] Edwin M. Yamauchi, PH.D, as quoted in The Case For Christ, Strobel, Zondervan. P87.

[20] Mark 6:4-6

[21] Mark 14:71

[22] More Than A Carpenter, McDowell, Chapter 5.

Christian Apologetics Part 3 - How can we know that God interacts with His creation?

Jer 1:5  "Before I formed you in the womb I knew  you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (NIV)

Jer 29:11-13  For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.   Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you.   You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”  (NIV)

Rom 12:1-2  Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.  Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (NIV)

In my last post, I showed significant evidence that the universe was created ex nihilo (from nothing) by a powerful, intelligent being, who exists outside our known universe and thus, outside our space and time.  Many deists (as well as many agnostics and others) claim that they believe that God could exist, but that even if he does, he does not interact at all with his creation and he has nothing at all to do with us or our daily lives.  This leaves Christianity as a farce invented by humans for their own purposes.

If God does not interact with His creation, if he simply set it on its way and then ignored it, then how did life come to exist in the universe?  If life came about in the universe as a work of a creator (created after the universe expanded to existence during the Big Bang), then we know that God in fact does interact with his creation and we must ascertain to what degree.

The only alternative to life in the universe being as a result of a creator is that life came about from nothing through random chance.  What, then, is the probability that life could come to exist in this universe as a matter of random chance?  That is the question I will address next.

Abiogenesis vs Theory of Common Origin

Before we begin any discussion of evolution we must first define what the term means, because it means different things in different contexts.

In the common vernacular, one might say "a country's foreign policy evolves along with the experience of its leadership".  This simply means changes over time.  When discussing evolution with respect to origin of life, however, it means something very specific.

Because of the significant issues of life coming into existence from non-biological sources, however, this problem has been separated from the historical "evolution" moniker and has been termed "abiogenesis" which literally means "the beginning of biological life from non-biological matter", with traditional "evolution" being termed the Theory of Common Origin (TCO).

In this way, these two subjects can be addressed separately and proponents of TCO need not concern themselves with abiogenesis and can file it under the heading of "we don't know (and don't really care)".

We will begin with a discussion of the Theory of Common Origin about which was first published widely by Charles Darwin.

Adaptation (Micro-evolution) vs Speciation (Macro-evolution)

Micro-evolution, or adaptation, is indisputable and can be seen within a lifetime.  This is brought about easily by breeding animals with certain characteristics.  For example, selective breeding can ensure offspring with certain characteristics – i.e. a certain color or other physical characteristic.  No one disputes micro evolution.  Evidence of micro evolution is demonstrated in the Bible when Jacob influences the color of the sheep and goats he is tending.[4] Interestingly enough, adaptation is seen by many as really good evidence of great design by the Creator.

Macro-evolution, or speciation, however, is another story altogether.  The principle of macro evolution claims that a species can evolve into another species (as noted above).  According to Darwin, this happens naturally based on selective breeding (strong and beautiful animals are attracted to other strong and beautiful animals) and survival of the fittest.[5]

Because this process must happen in very small incremental steps, the amount of change required for a species to change into another species would happen over hundreds or thousands of generations (or more) over vast periods of time.

Macro-evolution under the microscope

When speaking of Darwin, though, one must address the subject of his works "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man".  These works define the details of the Theory of Common Origin.

Darwin posits in these works that those species which are strongest will survive and those which are weakest will not (survival of the fittest).  He states that one can see changes in various species in just a few generations and that any such changes which are beneficial will make the species stronger leading to a higher chance of survival and propagation of that new trait to its offspring.  Changes in individual animals which make them weaker cause them to die off with a lesser chance of propagating that weakening trait to its offspring.

He speculates that with one small change (genetic mutation) at a time over many, many generations a species will change enough that it will become a new species.  A new species being loosely defined as a species which cannot successfully produce non-sterile offspring with it's previous form.  Thus if an ape eventually evolves into a human then they are now separate species and a human cannot successfully produce non-sterile offspring with an ape.[24]

This notion of gradual evolution over long periods of time is crucial to the theory of evolution.  Many have found fossils which they claim are a transitional form between two other forms.  Darwin, however, specifically states that you cannot go from one form, to one other transitional form, and then a new form altogether (three steps).

To show evidence of the evolutionary cycle, one must show every single step between one form to another as one or two traits show up in consecutive generations.  Thus you must not find 3 forms, but hundreds or thousands of forms between Species A (the original species) and Species B (the new species).

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."  -- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Darwin goes to great length to explain the lack of fossil evidence, but he invariably comes back to the incompleteness of the fossil record.  173 years later, this is still a huge problem for Darwinian Evolution.[25]

It is important to note here that Darwinian Evolution is not fatal to the Christian worldview.  It is possible that God chose to do his work of populating the Earth with many wondrous varieties of species through the process of evolution.  For more information about Theistic Evolution see Appendix C.

My objections to evolution are not as much religious as they are scientific as we will see more as we go along.  Regardless, though, of if all life on this planet began with "a few or one" original species, the much bigger question is, where did that "few or one" species come from?

Abiogenesis

Darwin did not understand molecular biology as we understand it today.  He had no electron microscope and was unaware of DNA.  His theory was formulated solely based on observation of the natural world.  Today, in order to reconcile with modern science the idea that life came into existence on the Earth without help from a Creator, many assumptions have to be made about such things as the age of the earth.

For life to evolve on the earth without any intervention by an intelligent creator, there would have to have been all the necessary building blocks of a protein with perfect conditions (perfect temperature, perfect medium to incubate, etc.) such that these chemical reactions could happen by chance.  Evidence shows that the early earth did not have any of the needed characteristics.[6]

According to one scientist, the possibility of random chance creating a single protein by mere chance is 1 in 10⁶⁰.  He describes those odds as about as likely as a tornado blowing through a junk yard and by chance assembling a fully functional 747 – and this is the probability that a single protein could be created by chance from inorganic substances.  The human body contains as many as 20,500 different kinds of proteins[7].  Scientist and Philosopher Stephen C. Meyer estimates the chances of an entire protein molecule being constructed entirely by chance is more like 1 in 10¹²⁵ and a minimally complex cell would need between three hundred and five hundred such protein molecules,[8] and those molecules would have to be the right molecules to carry out the function of life.

French statistician Emile Borel states that "phenomena with very low probabilities do not occur".  He found that, on a cosmic scale, any odds of less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ will not happen.[9]

Evolutionists argue Borel’s principle does not apply because given infinite time anything is possible and the longer the time that is available the more likely it will occur.  The problem with this argument is that we know how long the universe has existed – 13.77 billion years ( ± 0.059 billion years)[10].  

Further, it is common scientific understanding that after the birth of the universe it took quite some time for the basic elements of the earth to come to exist and then for the earth to cool (from the initial heat of the Big Bang expansion) to a temperature which could sustain life.

“The only chemical elements created at the beginning of our universe were hydrogen, helium and lithium, the three lightest atoms in the periodic table. These elements were formed throughout the universe as a hot gas...

Carbon and oxygen were not created in the Big Bang, but rather much later in stars. All of the carbon and oxygen in all living things are made in the nuclear fusion reactors that we call stars. The early stars are massive and short-lived. They consume their hydrogen, helium and lithium and produce heavier elements. When these stars die with a bang they spread the elements of life, carbon and oxygen, throughout the universe. New stars condense and new planets form from these heavier elements. The stage is set for life to begin.[11]

According to “The Physics Factbook”,

"The Pre-Cambrian encompasses nearly 90% of the Earth's history, stretching from 4.5 billion years ago, to 570 million years ago when the fossil evidence first reveals living cells."[12]

 This is the time period of the aforementioned Cambrian Explosion.

This leaves 3.5 billion years for the first biological cell to originate from non-biological materiels and as long as 570 million years for life to have evolved from the earliest life forms to it’s current state.  That may seem like a long time, but 570 million years is a mere fraction of the time required for such random chance to have occurred.[13]

There simply was not infinite time for this to have happened.

The bottom line is, it requires much more faith to believe life on the Earth is a matter of random chance than to believe in an intelligent Creator.  Statistically, life by mere chance is all but impossible[14]; there simply has not been enough time.  Without the possibility of evolution there is simply no other explanation for life on earth than a creator.

Remember, science is trying to find the most probable truth and any hypothesis or theory is only as good as its latest test.  Evidence is mounting that the existence of a creator is much more probable than the lack of one.

DNA’s genetic code

The most significant biological evidence of a creator, by far, is DNA.

A Cell’s DNA stores information in the form of a four character digital code.  The four characters are the chemicals Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine.  Scientists refer to them as [A], [G], [C], and [T], respectively.

There are about six feet of DNA tightly coiled inside of every one of our body’s one hundred trillion cells.  This DNA contains all the information needed to build every protein needed by the body (all cells are made up of proteins).

Properly arranging these four “bases” (A, G, C, and T) will instruct the cell how to build different sequences of amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins.  Different arrangements yield different amino acids.

Depending on the order of the amino acids, different forces are applied to the protein making it bend into specific three dimensional shapes.  Each shape fits perfectly with other proteins with complimentary shapes (somewhat like lego blocks).  These proteins linked together allow the proteins to perform a particular function.

If any of the amino acids is in the wrong order the protein will not be properly created and will not build a protein which will fit with other proteins and will not perform a function.

To build one protein, you typically need 1,200 to 2000 bases (or letters).

Another important aspect of the ordering of amino acids to build proteins is there are some slight affinities between various amino acids and these affinities would preclude any functional cell if they bonded as per their affinity.  If they bonded as per their affinity, there would only ever be a very few types of cells and the result would be some kind of a crystal of salt where there is simply a repetitive sequence.

Finally, the bases must be arranged on the DNA strand in the right order to function and none of the chemical bases has any particular affinity with any other.  Rather, the order of the data is what is called “specified complexity”.  An example of specified complexity is the order of the letters in this paragraph.  They are not in any repetitive order, but randomly placed with a specific complexity designed to communicate.

"Whenever we encounter these two elements – irregularity that’s specified by a set of functional requirements, which is what we call ‘specific complexity’ – we recognize this as information.  And this kind of information is invariably the result of mind – not chance, not natural selection, and not self-organizational processes.

… Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties.  We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in the DNA also implies an intelligent source." [19]

This code is essentially a four letter programming language which is strung together to create instructions to allow a cell to build proteins which work together to perform some function (Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, calls DNA “The Language of God” in his book of the same name).  When all these proteins work together they create an organ which, when combined with other organs, create an organism.

DNA is God's programming language!  Recent discoveries show that what was once thought to be "junk DNA" (previously thought to be vestigial left-overs from millions of years of evolution) is actually built-in redundancy in the code.  God knew that mutations would occur over time and he built in a fail-safe.

The close resemblance of DNA to (humanly designed) computer code is so striking that it takes an amazing amount of faith to believe it is not the work of intelligence.  To further illustrate the information bearing properties of DNA, scientists recently encoded an entire book into DNA.  "...the book, ...includes 53,426 words, 11 images and one interactive Javascript app."

We have seen that the existence of the universe has been shown scientifically to have happened as a result of an intelligent and powerful being which exists outside of our space and time.

Not only was the entire universe set in motion, but the very most basic building blocks of life could not have been stitched together by any other mechanism but an intelligent creator.

Naysayers will argue for any number of possible alternative explanations all of which are more far-fetched than the last and all of which require much more faith to believe than that of an intelligent creator– a God who exists and interacts with His creation.

The scientific principle known as Occam’s Razor states “the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory”.  This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.[21]

Scientists who understand the science and choose to not believe in an intelligent creator are not simply ignoring Occam’s Razor; they are ignoring the best possible explanation.  Science need not preclude the possibility of a deity.  If the goal of science is to find the truth then the possibility of the existence of God should not be eliminated from the start as it so often is.

The fact is, there are many scientists of faith who believe and sometimes even evangelize that science and Christianity work hand and hand together.  Some of those quoted here even say that science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists and give science as the driving force behind their salvation experience.

A large percentage of scientists, even of the past, were and are Christians, many of whom were professing agnostics or atheists before delving into the Bible for answers to questions when confronted with such clear Biblical statements that are constantly being confirmed by science as science continues to change with new discoveries. Many books written today by scientists dealing with science and the beginning of time are by just such authors – people with PhDs in various fields of science, converted from agnosticism or atheism to Christianity. These men include Gerald L. Schroeder, PhD (Genesis and the Big Bang, The Science of God, and The Hidden Face of God); Francis S. Collins, PhD (The Language of God); Hugh Ross, PhD (The Creator and the Cosmos, More than a Theory); Robert W. Faid, PhD (A Scientific Approach to Christianity); and John H. Sailhamer, PhD (Genesis Unbound).[22]

So, the knowledge that there is a Creator God, and that He interacts with his creation, demands the questions: "How much does He interact with His creation?"  and "What mechanisms does He use to interact with His creation?"  Christians believe the answer to these questions is: The Bible.

In my next post I will begin answering the question: "How can we know that the Bible is accurate and true?"

Appendix A

What did Charles Darwin believe about the existence of a Creator?

What do you believe Charles Darwin says in his books Origin of Species and Descent of Man?  Does he make the case, as most people believe, that all life evolved from nothing (abiogenesis)?  Most people assume that he did, but in fact he did not.

He makes the hypothesis that all species on the earth evolved from a single or a few life forms.  He specifically does not consider the origins of life itself, nor does he deny the existence of a creator. 

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.[1] (emphasis mine)

Note Darwin's frequent use of the words "creator" and "created".  He also assumes that the first species or two on the earth were created by The Creator:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having

been originally breathed (by the Creator)[2] into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.[3]

Some point to Darwin's Descent of Man as an indication of his lack of belief in any kind of creator.  His own words on the subject in that work clearly contradict that notion as well.

There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God....  The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed. [23]

Thus, Darwin avoids a decision one way or the other of whether or not a Creator exists and merely points out that there is no credible evidence to suggest that man instinctively knows that an Omnipotent God exists (although some modern scholars would disagree with him).

He posits that as man's ability to reason evolved, so did his ability to think in the abstract.  With this ability he then began to attempt to explain natural phenomena as the work of spirits which eventually evolved into a belief in a god or gods.  He specifically states, however, that even though this is the case (in his opinion) this does not preclude the existence of a "Creator and Ruler of the universe" and even states that "some of the highest intellects that have ever existed" believe in such a God.

Some will then point to some of he private letters to show that Darwin did not believe in a creator. 

Throughout the private letters that I have read as well as his two essays (Origin of Species and Descent of Man), he is emphatically non-committal as to the existence of a creator.

In his private letters, his primary argument against God is the existence of suffering in the world (dealt with in this series).  His primary argument in support of God is how the universe itself could come into existence absent some kind of "beginner". He continually refers to his own waffling on the subject and insists that his opinion is of no importance.

Throughout his writings he consistently refers to man's inability to fully comprehend the truth in these matters, although he believes man should still try.

Thus, Charles Darwin was not convinced that a Creator God does not exist and describes himself as an agnostic.

Appendix B

What of the Biblical account of the universe being created in six days?

Gen 2:4  This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in  the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.  (NASB)

2Pe 3:8  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

The idea that the earth has even been around for 4.5 billion years begs the obvious question from Christians (and others about the first and second chapters of Genesis where Moses states that the earth was created in six days.

Ancient Hebrew contains about 50,000 words, modern English, closer to a million.  Thus a single word in Hebrew could mean many different things for which we have separate words in English.  Further, most Hebrew words contain both literal and figurative meanings and the translator must decide whether the word should be translated literally or figuratively based on context.

The word for “day” in Genesis is “yome”.  Strong’s Hebrew dictionary defines yome when used literally to mean the time between sunrise to sunset ("We can only play baseball during the day because the field has no lights") or from sunset to the following sunset ("A week is seven days long"), but figuratively it means “a space of time defined by an associated term” ("In my day, we would never talk back to a teacher").

It is likely that the word "yome", as expressed in Genesis 1, was meant to indicate an era or epoch (which could have taken any length of time) and that each era need not take the same length of time as any other era.

When taken into account with the full body of work (including supporting verses in Job, Psalms, etc.) I believe the figurative translation is most likely.

There is nothing in the Biblical account of the origins of the Earth which contradict anything which has been discovered by science when interpreted in this way (remember the discussion of the two books in the introduction).

As a matter of fact, the order of the creation of life as recorded in the Bible exactly represents the order in which science says life came into existence on the planet.  God, then, could have created life such that each creative work was left to flourish on the earth just long enough for his next creative work to maximally benefit from the previous creation.  Man, then, was created at just the right time for humans to flourish on the earth, benefiting from all of the previous creative works.

Rather than each creative work occurring in consecutive 24 hour "days", they each occurred in consecutive "eras".

While it is truth that God is God and He certainly could have put the universe into fast-forward or created it in an old state, this is not in keeping with a God of truth and order.

Supernova 1987a was observed in February 1987. 

Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.[17]

This means that SN1987A went supernova 168,000 years ago (since a light-year is the distance light will travel in one year).  So either the universe has existed for at least 168,000 years, or God made it look like a star which never existed was that far away and went supernova at some time in the past.  In the latter case, God would be in the role of “tricking” us into believing that the star existed 168,000 years ago and God is a God of truth, not of trickery.[18]  I find this evidence most compelling and this is the evidence which converted me from a young earth creationist to an old earth creationist.

Importantly, the earth being very old does not diminish the miraculous nature of God's creative works as the earth was being prepared for man to take ownership of it.

For an exhaustive work on the subject, I highly recommend the book "More Than a Theory" by Dr. Hugh Ross.

Appendix C

Theistic Evolution 

When in Genesis the English Bible says "God created" or "God made", etc. different words are used to indicate differing means of causing something to come into being.

Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning, God created" -> (created = bara = "shaped": Strong's H1254)
Genesis 1:3 - "Let there be light" ->"Let there come to pass: light" (be = haya = come to pass: Strong's H1961)
Genesis 1:11 - "Let the Earth bring forth grass" -> "Let the earth sprout grass" (bring forth = dasha = sprout: Strong's H1876)
Genesis 1:21 - "And God created the great sea creatures" -> "And God shaped the great sea creatures" (Created = bara = shaped Strongs H1254)
Genesis 1:24 - "God said let the earth bring forth living creature" (Bring forth = yatsa: Strong's H3318)
Genesis 1:25 - "God made" -> "God accomplished" (Made = asah = accomplish: Strong's H6213)
Genesis 1:26 - "Let us make man" (Make = asah = accomplish: Strong's 6213)
Genesis 1:27 - "God created man" -> "God shaped man" (created = bara = shaped. Strong's H1254)
Genesis 2:22 - "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman" -> "built he a woman" (made = banah = built: Strong's H1129) [aside: rib here is a literal rib also used for a plank in a door, etc.)

 Based on the literal reading of the original Hebrew, it is possible that God created certain things explicitly in that he caused them to "come to pass" which I take to mean "come into being" as in Genesis 1:3.

Since the initial elements of the Big Bang were gasses which produced stars which quickly exploded to create the heavier elements.  It is in keeping with Big Bang cosmology and with the Bible that the first thing that was created "ex nihilo" (from nothing) was light.

Since other words used into this text translated into English as created, made, or brought forth have literal meanings including shaped, formed, etc. it is possible that what God did during the creation eras was to cause the genetic changes to happen within a species which caused speciation to occur.

The most important of these speciation events would be that of man. Once the vessel of man evolved, that which made him special would then have been "Imago Dei" (the image of God). Thus making him different from all the other animals in that man would be the only animal to bear the image of God.

It is a bit more difficult to read of the creation of woman based on this same understanding, but there are those who have endeavored to do just that.

The belief that God accomplished his good and perfect will through the process of evolution is known as Theistic Evolutionism.  Possibly the most important proponent of this worldview is Francis Collins, former head of the human genome project.

Bibliography

1. Darwin’s Black Box, Michael J. Behe, The Free Press, 1996.
2. The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder, PhD., The Free Press, 1992.
3. The Case for Christ, Lee Stroebel, Zondervan, 1998.
4. The Case for Faith, Lee Stroebel, 2000.
5. The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, 2004.
6. On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859.
7. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of The Diety, collected from the Appearances of Nature, William Paley, D.D, Lincoln, Edmands & Co., 1831.
8. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin,  1871.

---

[1] Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859.  Page 222.

[2] This phrase was not in the original 1859 version of the book, but was added by the author to the 1872 version just prior to his death.

[3] Origin of Species, Charles Darwin,  1872, final paragraph.

[4] Genesis 30:25-43

[5] Survival of the fittest contends that genetic mutations leading to a stronger animal will cause the animal to survive over a weaker animal and pass that trait on to its offspring, whereas, genetic traits causing a weakening of the animal will result in that animal not surviving to pass the trait on to any offspring.

[6] The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel, Page 96-97.

[7] The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, Page 220.

[8] The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, Page 228.

[9] Probability and Life, Emile Borel, 1962.
Borel, himself, argued against using his criteria for creationism purposes. He was attempting to answer "Infinite Monkey Theorem", the probability that a monkey sitting in front of a typewriter, given enough time tapping on random keys could end up typing out the full works of Shakespeare.  Considering all the letters needed to deliver such a work exists on the typewriter, the changes are possible, however slim that it could happen.

Clearly, Borel's principle does not apply in all situations.  A person who rolls a 10 sided die 51 times has a 1 in 10⁵¹ chance of rolling the sequence that he did.

Atheists like to say that the formula produced by Borel does not apply to creationism, but Borel himself in his book "Probability and Certainty" (circa 1950) says that all the variables concerning the origin of life are not known and thus the probability that life could not come into existence from non-life cannot be calculated.  He did not, however, say it could not be calculated if the variables were known.

The following is quoted from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html:


From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:

The Problem of Life.

In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.

When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?
It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.

Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.

Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.

Essentially, Borel says the processes involved are too complex for us to understand, thus we don't know if probability calculus can solve those problems.

Now, 67+ years later, we know a lot more about what is needed than Borel did in 1950.

[10] As measured by the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).  See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

[11] The original Big Bang only See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_life.html

[12] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/RonHuggins.shtml

[13] How long would be required to evolve from a single protein to a modern human is impossible to calculate since no undisputed case of evolution from one species to another has ever been found, so we have no undisputed frame of reference.

A paper published on phys.org in 2011, however, shows that lasting evolutionary change takes about 1 million years. Notably, the change noted here is a change in body size which is an example of adaptation and not speciation.

Considering life has only been possible on the planet for 3.5 billion years and complex life for about 570 million years.  We are asked to believe that life evolved from the organisms present on the earth 570 million years ago to a modern human in about 570 iterations.

Or more difficult to believe would be that modern humans evolved from the earliest single celled orgamisms into modern humans in just 3,850 iterations.

[14] There is no such thing as a statistical impossibility.  There is always a possibility, however miniscule, that something could occur - a possibility of 1 in 10¹²⁷ still leaves that “one in” chance.  It is this possibility, however slight, to which evolutionists cling to claim that evolution is responsible for life in the universe.

[15] The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder.

[16] The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder, Page 58.

[17] Panagia, N.. "New Distance Determination to the LMC". Memorie della Societa Astronomia Italiana 69: 225. Bibcode 1998MmSAI..69..225P

[18] Psalm 31:5

[19] Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, quoted in The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, page 234.

[20] Darwin’s Black Box, Michael J. Behe, page 232-233.

[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

[22] The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder.
[23] The Decent of Man, Charles Darwin, 'Belief in God-Religion.'
[24]  In recent years, the definition of "species" has changed quite a bit.  In fact there is a taxonomy board which looks at different plants and animals and makes the decision as to whether this is or isn't a different species.  The definition changes regularly and there is quite a lot of arguing amongst board members and other scientists about how various plants and/or animals are classified.

The definition of a species used to roughly be "any animal that could not breed with another animal", so for speciation to have occurred a species would have to have evolved from one animal to a different animal which could not longer breed with the original.  Newer definitions have changed all this, however, to the point that the lines are very fuzzy between what constitutes a new species.

This changing of the definition of what a species really is gives fodder to those who claim that speciation can occur, perhaps it can if you change the definition of what speciation means so that it is no longer a problem.
[25] Darwin explains that the reason one finds a species with a supposed common ancestor which is so different with no intermediate forms found in the fossil record is likely due to the ancestor being long-lived as a strong variation which then gives way to a transitional species which has a much smaller population and which is quickly driven to extinction by their progeny.  Some time later another particularly strong species evolves which attains a much greater population.

Because of both the relatively small populations of these intermediate species as well as the predator/prey relationship resulting in many of these being consumed by their predators, they reason they are not found in the fossil record is that there are so few of them and the fossil record is incomplete.